VALUE AND SUBJECTIVITY

Is value subjective? I believe this is a question that has been given various perspective, some relatable some not, so I thought I should share my perspective on the subject and I hope you find it interesting and most importantly strikes a conversation within you.

I will start by acknowledging the fact that the word “subjective” itself has been flawed in interpretation and in addition to an already controversial word “Value” which also has been flawed with various interpretations, you can now see the task of rightly defining this 2 concept will always spark up interesting conversations that already makes it subjective. 

In other not to frame your perspective in any direction, I will go ahead to defining some basic terminologies to give direction to this conversation on a general term.

What is Value? Definitions ref:  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/value

1.      the amount of money that can be received for something – Tangible/ quantitatively measurement.

2.      the importance or worth of something for someone – Perceived/ intangible/ qualitative measurement

From the above definitions, we can see 2 clear distinct ways to measure value which is the tangible and intangible, quantitative and qualitative. A wise man once stated, “You can’t improve what you can’t measure” therefore for value to have any sense of value (LOL), it has to attain some kind of measurement (expected basis for measurement should be fairness). It is the ability to translate the intangible value (perceived/ qualitative) to the tangible value (quantitative/ measurable) that helps man define his progress, when you can reconcile your abstract value to your quality of life, when you know you are living what you are worth then you feel a sense of fulfillment.

If you marry the two definitions, we will now see the connection between the worth of something (goods or service) or someoneand the amount of money received in the exchange/ translation of such value. I have not limited the exchange of value to monetary consideration alone but in all, we all need our perceived value to translate to tangible exchange therefore this exchange is critical for our continuous existence, hence why we do the things we do daily to make money (work). You, therefore, get an exchange in cash or kind, i.e. get paid in exchange for goods or service rendered or get some kind of treatment. I have often mentioned that man’s basic instinct for survival is hinged on his ability to achieve these 2 objectives as both have a significant impact on the quality of life he/she lives. 

These 2 objectives are financial stability and emotional fulfillment, in simple terms, you want to have enough cash to do the things you desire/love at your convenience and be around people that truly love you. We will leave that subject at that for now but note our emotion is a key part of our life, can we function outside of it? Just asking???????? 

Back to our subject, you can agree with me that there has to be an exchange or translation for value to attain its true meaning, an exchange already suggests a transaction between 2 or more persons or identities, I used the word exchange/ translation interchangeably deliberately and I will explain briefly.

As an individual, your task is to find a way to translate your value to attain its true expression. It is important to cultivate the habit of continuous improvement, of increasing our value daily which can only happen via KNOWLEDGE. 

The ability to translate your value in the intangible to tangible is what I call the translation period, it is a process of self-definition, it is always the starting point since you first have to believe you have value, measure it, evaluate and improve on it which is simply a process of self-assessment. As I mentioned earlier, man’s frustration starts when his abstract value does not translate to his desired quality of life, that will first mean you know you have value but working it out to find expression by acquiring more knowledge, keeping productive relationships and of course consistency in doing what you love. All of these are your translation period since you cannot exchange what you don’t have, to exchange something for something that means you have something of yours that can be perceived as of equal value. You, therefore, have to translate your abstract value by first finding it, and working it out for expression, only then you are qualified for the exchange, these are 2 different processes (translation and exchange of value) however with varied level of CONTROL. 

The concept of CONTROL is also an interesting perspective but will leave it out from our conversation for now. I believe your ability to translate your value from the abstract is within your control since it requires only you taking a deliberate decision to do same after careful consideration of the cost involve (it is personal). However, the process/ negotiation of exchange of your translated value to tangible resources is not within your control (involves another individual who now has a right to his/her perception of what that value is). Note: Growth will cost you but it is expected to bring forth its rewards in due time.

If an exchange has to occur, then we have to consider the concept of fairness and ask WHAT IS TRULY FAIR?

“Which is more important, the value I place on myself after paying the price of translation (internal process), or the value placed on me during an exchange (external process?)” knowing fully well that true expression of value is when its intangible form can be experienced tangibly at a measurement/exchange you consider fair either in monetary terms or some kind of treatment which cumulates in some emotional state which could be defined as happy or sad (Can we separate our emotions from our decisions?). E-motion?...............................

You can now see once a transaction is formed between 2 individuals it is never just business anymore, a relationship that can have emotional implications has been formed, they only have varying degrees of effects.

Let’s do some mathematics to show why value can be measured quantitatively using the concept of time equals money.

TIME = MONEY

In other to substitute Value with any of the above variables, we should know that Value can find expression in both variables. You will agree with me that you give a considerable level of time to anything you value, if you value your relationship you will spend time developing that relationship. You will also agree that you will necessarily spend money on what you value also.

Therefore, we can restate the equation as follows:

VALUE = TIME

VALUE = MONEY

Based on the above, life expectations are that you should derive maximum value from the things you spend considerable time and money on or with. I am sure a few might have just asked the obvious question, AM I GETTING VALUE FROM THIS? considering what it has cost you already (be careful of the sunk cost trap which can be avoided if you keep the value in focus not the money or its equivalent). You will notice I intentionally placed the Value ahead of time and money in presenting the equation because that’s the natural order, time and money always follows Value, money and time answer to Value.

It was important to show the above expression because one key area for your value to find expression is through the tangible and quantitative measurements you attached to it.

I am not taking any position even if I have a direction I am going with this, however I want to give a simple scenario below to drive the connection from the intangible to the tangible.

Picture that we have 2 individuals in negotiation over what is a fair consideration in value exchange, both have had varied experiences in life which must have formed one or two ideologies, and most importantly, both have the power of free will, the ability to choose and decide and finally considering that the power to ultimately determine whose perspective prevails depends on who has CONTROL. Let's play!!!!!!!!

7.30 am, June 1st, 2020, at the waiting room of a private company recruiting fresh graduates who just finished the compulsory NYSC program was kelvin, waiting his turn to be interviewed for the position of a graduate trainee in an IT firm in Lagos.

At exactly 7.45 am, Kelvin was escorted along a long hallway leading to a big conference room where Mrs. Lora, HR manager of this IT firm was seated with a light smile on her face, this gave some relief to kelvin whose heart was racing due to the panic that comes along with this kind of meeting.

The rest of the interview went as planned until the critical question of pay was raised and here we have our role plays.

I am only presenting value in this context as what can be measured (money as an exchange for time worked where the substitute for time here is Value since you are deriving value for that time spent working) and not to depict that’s all of what Value represents.

Kelvin will be expected to work for 40hours/week where he is expected to add value to the company and in return paid an amount considered fair for the time spent adding that value.

Now back track to the interview date, Mrs. Lora can choose to value kelvins performance during the interview on various criteria to come to fair consideration for the value kelvin has projected to her and trusting that kelvin delivers on his perceived value, I guess it now makes sense why trainees are paid so low because they are perceived to have no experience but are armed with potentials. I guess that can be considered fair right? Because I know some who pay ridiculous amounts just in the name of graduate trainee but sounds more like modern slavery wrapped in employment, remember the object of fairness is when both parties feel comfortable with the resulting outcome.

Well, we can assume Mrs. Lora will not offer Kelvin more than the budgeted remuneration for that position set by management during the years’ budget/ planning review irrespective of how exceptional kelvin has performed during the interview. This is to show that Mrs. Lora already has limitations to whatever value she will place on Kelvins' exchange of his time. That means before kelvin steps in, his value has already been capped and pegged at the limit, it will take an exceptional turn of the event for kelvin to get anything above the limit set. Is that fair?

I am sure someone will ask kelvin, why take the job if you consider the exchange of value unfair. Well, let’s make some assumptions about kelvin. 

Kelvin is 25years old and the first, of 4 children, he came into Lagos immediately after finalizing his NYSC in Kano to find a job to support his aging parents back in Ilorin. Two of his sisters are still in the university with about 2 years each to go before graduating. He was able to make a temporary accommodation arrangement with an old school friend who lives in Surulere side of Lagos till he can find a job and stabilize himself to handle the hustle of Lagos.

With the above presentation of kelvin, I am sure you understand why he will consider whatever is been offered by Mrs. Lora which she has considered a fair consideration for the exchange of his time. In other words, the negotiation is subject to Control, it is he/she who has the control that determines the value as seen in this context. 

Kelvin does not have any control over the organization's perception of his value as theirs is also informed by various factors like profitability, cash flow availability, industry average on salary, cost reduction strategy, country economic condition, inflation, FX fluctuations, etc. to come to such a decision as to what is considered fair when planning for the year. Maybe they don’t consider this factors in the decision-making process or just the ones that affect their interest, so I ask again, WHAT IS FAIR?

it seems in this context, the value placed on Kelvins time as represented in his salary (irrespective of what it is and what informed that value) from the external factors supersede his translated internal value during negotiations majorly because kelvin is not in a position to control the negotiations. Is this not true of life itself, we hope to have control over everything we can have control over because we feel a sense of security in having those controls in place. if not control everything but at least control over the important ones.

If we reverse kelvins role and represent him as a billionaire son in his late twenties, he probably won’t have to attend the interview or just come with a note from his dad and won’t need to negotiate payments since his primary goal was to get the experience so he can understand the trade hands on which is aimed at preparing him for the inevitable transfer of ownership of the company from his aging dad to him.

In this context, kelvin is the control just because he has a life experience that afford him that leverage which he can utilize to effect control of the negotiation (if any). 

This means that a difference in experience can tilt the hand on control, is It then not true that we are all a product of some kind of leverage or the other, we are all privileged to be in the position we are. 

That you are opportune to have some level of control in any area of your life is truly a privilege that should not be taken for granted because experiences can vary so can control, meaning the control gained can be lost just by a change in situation/experience. Control is POWER.

Understanding the importance of control in whatever context you see it (internal or external) is critical, control is truly power, therefore the question is ARE YOU FAIR IN CONTROL? Can you attain fairness in power? Can you still choose to be fair even when you have control? Can you still be fair when the power to do or not lies with you?

To avoid placing value and control only in the context of what can be measured, I will use a life scenario where a 13year old boy is holding a pistol to the head of a 50year old man (irrespective of societal class), you will agree with me that the 13year old is in control over the negotiation of the life of that 50year old man. Whatever happens in the next few seconds hugely depends on that 13-year-old choosing to see value in the 50year old man’s life and whatever is informing the 13year old boy's decision at that period should be good enough to not want to shoot. But invariably if he does shoot, that decision will still be rationalized. He is a 13-year-old boy, it was self-defense, he was terrified, he was forced. Etc. all that sound logical also I believe, so I ask again in this context, what is fair?

All I am saying is the subjective nature of value is because of its nature. Value is personal as long as I can only value what I choose to value. 

What is subjectivity? Definition ref: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subjectivity

the influence of personal beliefs or feelings, rather than facts

I love the above definition which allows me to ask another question, can you separate an individual from his or her value(s)? I do not think so. This means we carry with us our set of value(s) both in its abstract/ perceived/intangible and the tangible form (which unfortunate forms a basis of measurement in our world since we live in a tangible world controlled by the intangible).

If an individual cannot be separated from his or her value(s) then it is important to note that the individual (along with everything that represents him or her) is an important variable in the definition of value since value itself is not without the individual (host) as everything needs an object of identity to find expression. 

I also believe that every individual live life based on certain principles and belief system which guides our conduct (at least should be true for the majority that can read this), therefore we also cannot separate an individual from personal belief since he/she lives his/her life based on those beliefs.  

I do understand there could be few situations where an individual may have to drop his or her personal beliefs in other to take an objective decision because the facts are strong enough to override such an individual’s personal beliefs. I wonder what kind of decision will require such delicate considerations, maybe we do not get to have those situations often?

But I do believe that when it comes to the subject of value, your personal beliefs do have a major role to play if the concept of fairness in value exchange has to be attained.

You first have to believe in the concept of fairness to be able to apply it, it is a lot easier to apply if such forms part of one’s personal belief since an individual’s personal belief(s) defines them.

If subjectivity is defined as the influence of personal beliefs or feelings rather than facts in taking a decision, then we can say in the context of value where its exchange is aimed at achieving fairness is therefore subjective. Which means that if the facts suggest fairness after considering various factors during the exchange but personal beliefs do not believe in the concept of fairness, then achieving fairness in that exchange will be subjective. Same goes if personal beliefs accept fairness as a basis for value exchange but the fact do not support the decision, we then take the objective decision based on facts, this also makes value subjective, as longs as it is subject to personal interpretation.

I therefore ask Is Value Subjective? Or better asked this way, Is Fairness Subjective? Can true Value be achieved without Fairness?

The true definition of value starts and ends with the individual. It is a personal journey that starts with a process of self-definition. Firstly, you have to find out your value and develop it in the abstract to qualify as a means of exchange which you can now trade for tangible resources as every individual needs the tangible resources to survive in this planet, therefore, we cannot ignore the subject of money, it is the understanding of the order that matters. Never put money ahead of value, money always follows value. 

To the level to which you choose to develop your value is within your control, however, achieving fairness during the exchange period (cash or kind) will most time not be within your control, which is while each individual needs to understand the need to treat one another fairly irrespective of who is privileged to have control because control is not constant just a condition that is for a defined period. Understanding the above concept should keep an individual humble.

If one will choose to treat another fairly in value exchange, if only the concept of fairness is engraved into our personal beliefs, and the same cycle continues, in no time we will have a community of individuals who treat each other fairly. This may help remove the subjectivity in the definition of value since we all can agree to a simple concept called fairness in exchange. Is this fairness truly achievable?

I will finalize by referring to an interesting case we discussed in our ABP session with the most esteemed, smart, intelligent, phenomenal Dr. Yetunde Anibaba. (sorry please allow me to brag).

A CEO with good intentions thought it wise to pay his staff a minimum of $70,000 as salary to enable them to live their desired quality of life after considering basic economic factors (I wish someone will do this for me, LOL). To my surprise, one staff did complain and did suggest he is being overpaid. I dropped the case at that point and did some thinking, and the question that I kept asking was “Can I value someone more than they value themselves? Does this have any effect on the individual even when my intentions are genuinely pure based on my perception of what I considered fair? 

Therefore “Which is more critical, the value I place on myself (internal) or the value placed on me (external)? And in that light, Is Value subjective even though some believe it should not?

Or is value subjectivity depending on context?

Should VALUE FOR LIFE then be SUBJECTIVE?

Is Value in the intent or act or both? Since people will most likely judge your actions before understanding your intentions. 

Oludare Adetunji